This letter is self-explanatory in nature. It was my duty to warn the Air Force before they entered into a contract with Boeing:


February 25th, 2008



The Honorable Sue C. Payton
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition
1060 Air Force Pentagon, Room 4E964, AF/AQ
Washington, DC 20330-1060



Dear Assistant Secretary Payton:

This urgent letter is to inform you of matters that I have witnessed that I believe should strongly bear upon how you should go about structuring the KC-X contract and how you perform contract negotiations should The Boeing Company be selected over the Airbus/Northrop team as supplier of the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft.

First, I want to make my motivations in giving you this crucial information clear: I am not trying in any way to influence you to select the Airbus/Northrop proposal for the KC-X instead of the Boeing offer. Instead, quite the opposite is true, although that is not related to this letter other than as background information. I do hope you ultimately select the Boeing RFP even considering the corruption I detail below that I witnessed that is still entrenched deeply within Boeing management following the former tanker contract debacle and other Boeing ethical and legal lapses that have been aired publicly for several years now.

My opinion as a loyal former Boeing employee and U.S. citizen that can trace my roots in this country to eighteen years after the Plymouth Colony was settled and some 138 years before our country was founded is that it is essential for the economy of our country, the preservation of aerospace manufacturing jobs in this country, and therefore the preservation of military aircraft production capacity within the United States, that Boeing is ultimately selected as the winner of the competition for the KC-X contract.

That said, I can now get to the essential crux of this letter, which is how best you and your KC-X procurement team can structure a contract should, as I hope, Boeing wins the competition, in order to protect the Air Force, Air Force personnel who will fly on and use these tanker aircraft, and the American taxpayer from the consequences of the fraud still ongoing within management at Boeing today several years after Boeing’s much self-publicized “ethics reforms.”

As a former Boeing Quality Assurance Inspector until just over a year and a half ago, when I was terminated per the direction of the highest management levels at the company for collecting information in order to bring this continuing fraud in Boeing management to light, I witnessed this management fraud in Boeing Commercial Airplanes Quality Assurance on a daily basis. Knowing not only the lives of the public were being intentionally placed at higher risk by corrupt Boeing management because of this fraud, but the lives of our brave military personnel were placed at much higher risk illegally, as well, to maximize Boeing’s bottom line, I knew I had to act to stop this brazen fraud before more lives of the public and our military that fly on Boeing Commercial Airplane platforms were inevitably lost, so I reported this rampant fraud in QA throughout BCA to the FAA in early 2002, well before the former tanker contract debacle.

By the way, this letter is in no way related to Boeing Corporate Headquarter’s retaliation against me as noted above. I knew the day I decided to try to bring Boeing’s illegal actions I witnessed to justice that I would be ultimately removed from my job by Boeing as retaliation for attempting to bring Boeing management’s fraudulent actions to an end as I knew Boeing management’s corrupt modus operandi almost better that they knew it themselves at that point, when Boeing’s “win at any cost” “ethic” was in full swing, as it had not been publicized yet.

The fraud that I witnessed and reported to the FAA in early 2002 is a fraud that sadly continues to this day, due to a relationship with the arm of the FAA that I reported it to that mirrors to some extent the bias that was unfortunately shown by a few former officials in the Air Force before those officials were removed from their posts following the reforms instituted after the 2003 tanker procurement scandal. While the Air Force, under your new leadership team’s hard work and integrity, is totally reformed now and is up to the task in performing your duties with the utmost integrity for the benefit of the taxpayer and our military you represent, the same cannot be said of the FAA and Boeing management involved in the continuing fraud I witnessed. And it is this continuing fraud that, if not noted and addressed by your team as it relates to the KC-X program, poses a grave threat to military personnel who fly on or use the services of the KC-X tanker, and an unreasonable danger to the wise use of American taxpayers’ dollars. Possible challenges to the hard won reputation of the procurement agency for the program also exist if this ongoing corruption at Boeing and the FAA is not properly addressed before a contract is signed, and is not properly mitigated during the life of the program.

The fraud I witnessed on a daily basis at Boeing is something you have likely heard of. While my coworkers and I referred to it as “rollerstamping,” this fraud does have other names in the industry, such as “hot stamping,” or perhaps its most apt description: Product Substitution.

As you well know, the safety, quality, and reliability of military as well as commercial airplane platforms that are produced must be ensured by strict adherence to inspection, testing, and other quality assurance processes. Without such processes, no matter how well intentioned the people are that do the actual construction of those aircraft and their many component parts, inevitably faulty and/or incomplete aircraft will be produced because all humans by nature make mistakes, especially on fast paced and complex tasks requiring high levels of skill, such as in aircraft manufacturing.

That basic fact is acknowledged in the modern regulations and implementing and necessarily mandatory quality assurance procedures that have been put in place over the years to ensure the safety, quality, and reliability of military and commercial aircraft is ensured, and is ensured to the high level required.

However, to Boeing and FAA management, those critical regulations and implementing procedures are only guidelines, if that.

At Boeing, inspectors are expected by management to “look the other way” rather than actually do their critical jobs of ensuring the safety and conformity of Boeing aircraft, and FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors are also similarly expected by their management to “look the other way” from their duties to enforce the FAA regulations at Boeing and to ensure Boeing is adhering to their FAA required quality system.

Is this corruption just speculation? Hardly. I, as well as many others, witnessed it, and I in fact proved it during my dealings with top Boeing and FAA management in my thusfar futile efforts to end this endemic and symbiotic Boeing/FAA fraud.

My reports of this fraud at Boeing to Boeing and FAA management did not have the desired result of reform so inspectors like me could begin to do their critical jobs without the inevitable harassment and retaliation for doing so. The FAA and Boeing chose to cover up and protect this fraud rather than investigate and end it. My refusal to ignore FAA foot dragging on investigating my report did result in corrupt FAA management having to document a few of my many reported Boeing noncompliances so as to be able to say they did an investigation, so they unwillingly corroborated several systemic noncompliances I reported. However, the major and most serious by far noncompliances the “investigation” of my report by Boeing and the FAA uncovered was in proving that the many noncompliances I reported were not just a result of low level Boeing management corruption—they were instead a result of corruption at the highest levels of FAA and Boeing management—a true “working together” corrupt relationship to ensure Boeing did not have to abide by what they saw as too expensive to comply with mandatory quality and safety ensuring regulations and procedures. What Boeing management got out of this corruption is clear as most of their compensation is tied to bottom line driven stock option prices. What the corrupt FAA management involved got out of ensuring Boeing could break regulations, in opposition to their mandated duties, other than “quid pro quo” well paying jobs at Boeing and organizations funded by Boeing is less clear, but time will tell.

Since you are busy, I will spare you the details in this letter as this letter is to only warn you of this fraud so you can take measures to protect the taxpayer and warfighter from it before it is too late to do so. The details of this fraud are on my website, www.thelastinspector.com . I strongly suggest you visit the site to find out the corroborating and disturbing details of this corrupt FAA/Boeing relationship.

As you are intimately aware of the inner workings of the aviation industry as I am, it should not surprise you then that the ethics reforms Boeing said it undertook after the first tanker contract and the Lockheed RFP data theft debacles did not “take,” and Boeing management still relies on unethical and illegal activities to enhance its bottom line. Even unethical and illegal activities that obviously place many citizen and military lives at risk.
Although Boeing has apparently been very careful to not use such unethical and illegal habits in the current tanker RFP until the contract is sewn up, that has not prevented it from engaging is such misconduct in other areas of its business—especially “safe” areas to do so, such as internally in making quality and safety assurance at Boeing one of the most corrupt organizations within Boeing, and in long fostered corrupt relationships with FAA management. The Boeing Legal department is another area where the illegal is tolerated, if not fostered. They were they department of Boeing tasked with covering up rather than ending the Boeing management corruption I reported to them on two occasions. It is no accident an internal Boeing system used by Boeing Legal is called the “elegal” system, and that one of Boeing Legal’s top attorney’s mantra was “you gotta do what you gotta do.” Rather than end the corruption I reported to them, the same Boeing Legal attorney assigned to “investigate” my report was also assigned to personally ensure I was arrested and charged with a crime for collecting data for my continuing efforts to end the noted Boeing/FAA corruption.

However this letter is not about what Boeing has done to me. It is solely to protect the taxpayer from being defrauded by Boeing as it defrauds its current customers via the ongoing product substitution abetted by corrupt management personnel in the FAA, as well as to ensure such fraud is not allowed unwittingly by your organization to place military personnel’s lives at extra risk by your organization not being informed of it.

I have read disturbing articles about the still unreformed FAA being allowed to certify 767 tankers for Japan and Italy. Such certifications are next to meaningless in the current era of FAA management corruption. This is a key area that will have to be changed should Boeing be awarded the contract.

If FAA personnel have to be used on the tanker program in any way, DCMA Quality Assurance personnel must closely supervise FAA personnel to ensure they are actually doing their critical jobs rather than mostly pretending to do them. They must perform independent audits of Boeing quality assurance as well as FAA inspections and certification work with ending and preventing the fraud reported in this letter and on my website in mind during the program. Such heightened oversight activities by the DCMA must be allowed in the contract.

Boeing will likely pursue language that FAA and FAA delegated Boeing personnel do as much of the inspection and certification work as possible in the contract. After this letter, the motivations of such language should be much more transparent. Language must be inserted in the contract to give the DCMA the authority, headcount, and budget with which to perform the much increased oversight functions that will prevent FAA/Boeing fraud on the program from being used to pump up Boeing’s profits from the program via the noted product substitution currently enabled by “quality assurance” at Boeing and the reduced certification costs lack of real FAA oversight provides.

Such real oversight by the DCMA would uncover problems in the production system hidden for years by the noted Boeing and FAA non-oversight of Boeing’s engineering and production processes. This would add additional costs to the program, but the conforming aircraft that would result would be worth those costs. Drawings and engineering specs that could never be complied with as they were in error and/or conflicting would be uncovered—never fixed because Boeing management thought it would cost too much to fix them and that such fixes were “non-value added” no matter how much the errant engineering confused those who had to try to build per those drawings/specs and how creative mechanics had to become to make what they thought the engineer might have intended. Such evidence of past Boeing and FAA carelessness will be simply more proof of the corruption I am disclosing to you now.

Although I have not been on the Boeing production line for over a year, there is no doubt the FAA/Boeing fraud proven by the handling of my reports continues to this day. I still communicate with Boeing personnel on occasion. Nothing has changed. If the noted fraud was ended by Boeing and/or the FAA, the severe bottlenecks on production programs resulting would have to be made public, and an announcement by the FAA making the public announcement of the ultimately ineffective FAA Special Technical Audit of 1999/2000 seem very insignificant by comparison would have to be done. Neither has happened to date.

As you can see on my website documenting the Boeing and FAA management corruption I and others have witnessed, “working together” fraud in Boeing and FAA management will not be the only Boeing mismanagement and fraud your team will have to be vigilant in preventing in order to protect the interests of the military and our country’s citizens during a Boeing tanker program. Boeing’s past intentional and “unintentional” mismanagement of ITAR controls is an area that will need special emphasis in preventing during a Boeing tanker program. The QRS-11 chip debacle is just one such instance of ignoring such controls that I helped ensure a fair end to for our country. Transfer of ITAR data between commercial and military programs is another area that will need to be of special concern during the program in terms of putting in place controls to prevent such actions by Boeing’s still ethically challenged management during the program, and/or to prevent Boeing management’s past demonstrated disdain for adhering to ITAR controls when more money can be made by ignoring them from affecting how such controls are used on the program.

And then there are the 787 delays and the Japan and Italy tanker delays to consider as far as how to best help Boeing management avoid a repeat of those delays during a tanker program for our government. It is my belief that it was Boeing’s focus on “leaning out” the production and certification processes and focusing on the financial planning aspects of the program rather than planning sufficiently for production of the 787 itself that has resulted in the 787 delays. Schedules planned too tightly in order to meet financial targets ultimately has resulted in the delays thusfar, I believe. Notably, one of the “bright spots” in the 787 program thusfar has been the “smoothness” of certification activities on the program and the FAA siding with Boeing over experts on some controversial certification tests performed and those chosen not to be performed as was required in past new programs. I need not, I trust, give my well informed opinion as to why the FAA has been so accommodating to Boeing’s every wish on the program, and has allowed unprecedented levels of delegation of Boeing personnel to do formerly and exclusively FAA performed certification activities on past programs on the 787 program.

I will let my website give you the rest of the details. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions for me not addressed in this letter or on my website.

Please do not penalize Boeing workers for the continuing “sins” of their management. I believe, if you heed the warnings in this letter, Boeing and FAA management’s arrogance in continuing to perform unethical and illegal activities if the personal rewards are seen to outweigh the risk can be mitigated completely so that the Air Force will avoid being defrauded and receive the product contracted for, with the required levels of quality, safety, and reliability assured. And our country and the vast majority of Boeing workers not complicit with the noted fraud will reap the benefits of such a key contract to protect our military aircraft industrial base.

I hope one day soon the noted FAA/Boeing fraud will be ended. However, until then, procurement officials like you and the DCMA will have to take actions to protect our country and military from it on programs such as the KC-X tanker program and the P-8A Poseidon program.

Please ensure these warnings are heeded and the contract language is structured to protect the Air Force and the taxpayer from the noted Boeing/FAA fraud. Please delay any contract signing until such contract language is drafted, if necessary.

And please distribute this letter to your Deputy, Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, John Young, and any other member of your team that you believe has a need to know this information.

Sincerely,




Gerald Eastman

cc: The Honorable Patty Murray
United States Senate
173 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-0238

cc: The Honorable Maria Cantwell
717 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-228-0514 fax

As offices opened up on the morning of Tuesday, the 16th of May, 2006, just one day before I was falsely arrested and immediately before Nick Bauer (lead detective in the case), Scott Peterson (King County Deputy Prosecutor assigned to the case), and the Senior Manager of the Corporate Investigations Group of the Boeing Office of Internal Governance (the same Boeing manager whose statement/belief that “Boeing is the most arrogant company on the face of the planet” is memorialized on my website) walked to Superior Court Judge Eadie’s chambers to request a search/arrest warrant for me and my property, they, and one additional Boeing person, met in Deputy Prosecutor Scott Peterson’s office, colluding on how best to hang me out to dry for daring to try to bring Boeing’s criminal actions to an end and the criminals that were responsible for that criminal activity—the self-described “most arrogant management of any company on the face of the planet,” to justice.

Who was the extra Boeing person in that meeting, who functions as one of several Boeing regional “fixers” for some of the most difficult legal situations that Boeing’s doing business outside the boundaries of the law has gotten the company into over the years? Even I was incredulous to learn the identity of that “Boeing fixer” at that crucial meeting in which the fate of me and my family’s future would be decided, and I am one who is perhaps one of the best informed (albeit, if only “self-schooled”) people on the subjects of Boeing management hypocrisy, arrogance, greed, and corruption, just to name a few.

Present at the meeting was the person whose presence on behalf of Boeing would most readily prove that Boeing management’s attempts to get me falsely branded as a felon before I could succeed at getting them branded rightly as such was in fact a retaliatory action against me for my several attempts to get Boeing to begin to adhere to FAA rules and regulations to ensure the quality and safety of Boeing aircraft against the wishes of “working together in corruption” Boeing and FAA management.

Who was this person, who was Boeing’s top representative at the meeting? Even you, if you have been diligently perusing this site, will be surprised and appalled at the arrogantly obvious reason behind Boeing’s choice of who they would send to that meeting to ensure that I, the most reprehensible person imaginable to Boeing management—a “do-gooder”--tasted the fate that would have been theirs if real justice was done. And they would ensure at that meeting that I would suffer the fate they instead deserved by any means possible—including by prevaricating to any degree necessary to reach their retaliatory goal and setting my fate as a dark example of what would happen to any other Boeing employee who similarly dared to try to ensure that corrupt Boeing management and their valuable accomplices in government agencies were brought to justice for their serious crimes committed in search of ever greater “value” to their bottom lines by only superficially appearing to follow the relevant rules and regulations that were enacted as the minimum necessary to ensure the quality and safety of Boeing aircraft, and thereby passing more and more risk intentionally off to the passengers and crew of Boeing aircraft.

This person was the same person in Boeing Legal that performed damage control for Boeing after each of the two times I contacted Boeing’s Chief Counsel to try to get Boeing to voluntarily end the fraud in quality assurance I witnessed daily on Boeing production lines after my attempts to get their cohorts in FAA management to do their jobs of making sure Boeing built aircraft to the relevant quality and safety procedures and regulations failed. Boeing’s representative at the meeting at which my fate was decided was the last person I had talked to at Boeing before making plans to go public with the endemic Boeing and FAA management corruption I had witnessed! She was the Boeing Legal attorney who I told in that last conversation that I was going to go public if Boeing didn’t do anything about the corruption in BCA quality assurance that I had reported to them, to which she answered, “you gotta do what you gotta do,” which were her last words to me. Her last words seemed to me to be Boeing Legal’s mantra—do anything you have to do to get Boeing off the hook for the consequences of its chosen business illegal practices (as in the quality assurance fraud I witnessed)—whether it was legal or not.

Her actions under the direction of Boeing’s Chief Counsel were to take whatever actions were necessary to ensure that the fraud I reported to them could continue, as Boeing reaped incalculable “value” to their bottom line by the rollerstamping of inspections off as done when they either weren’t done at all or were only partially done. Their decision not to end the noted fraud likely wouldn’t have been any different now as the ethics of Boeing management is the same, but at that time Boeing was attempting to be profitable in the pre-recovery years after 9-11.

During the same conversation, this unethical Boeing attorney asked me if I had any additional “safety of flight” noncompliances to report to her that I had not put in the my reports in their possession. I was sure at the time that she asked me that only because Boeing could say said they did if I did go public—not because she cared about fixing such noncompliances at all. I was sure (and still am now) that it was just another intentionally ineffective “CYA” effort they felt they had to perform in case I did go to the media, just as was the “corporate internal audit” she had done of only my work area (even though it was clear in my report the fraud was companywide) that focused almost exclusively on paperwork and other matters not related to the actual quality or safety of the jet engines and engine pylons we built up and mostly just pretended to fully inspect before delivery.

That this “Boeing fixer” of the most serious legal matters for Boeing in Washington—Boeing’s “home” area—asked for only “safety of flight” noncompliances was very telling even if Boeing had no intention of investigating and fixing those problems—it was proof that Boeing Legal (and Boeing itself) was not going to do anything at all to stop the majority of the fraud in QA contained in my report—the intentional rollerstamping of inspections off at Boeing rather than actually doing those inspections—unless (perhaps and only perhaps) such obvious fraud and noncompliance with the vast majority of the FAA required Boeing Quality System could be proven to be an immediate threat to the safety of flight of an airplane. Never mind that the defects that such an intentionally noncompliant and ineffective quality system routinely allows to deliver to airline customers are of unknown severity by definition, and very well could be safety of flight issues, except that noone would find out about them unless they were found by accident by the airlines or the pieces of the aircraft were big enough to accurately determine that they had caused a particular crash.

So, what was an obviously unethical attorney (who only maintained a superficial cloak of an ethical nature as noted above with the pseudo corporate audit and pseudo seeming to be attending to the safety of flight aspects of my report) doing for Boeing at the noted meeting with the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, the detective, and the Boeing investigator for the case on May 16th , 2006? And why didn’t Boeing send someone else to make it less obvious Boeing was retaliating against me for my report to the FAA and letters to members of Congress? Inquiring minds should like to know. But from this seat it is obvious—this “Boeing fixer” that ensured I was unsuccessful in ending the fraud ongoing in QA at Boeing was there to ensure payback was delivered personally by her on behalf on the Chief Counsel for being such a painful gnat on the corrupt backside of the corporation in trying to end one of their most “value adding” noncompliances with critical laws and regulations (to the flying public, and not to Boeing, obviously).

The question needs to be asked as to what specifically transpired in that meeting to ensure the wrong party was charged. What did Boeing’s “fixer” promise the Deputy Prosecutor and/or Satterberg himself? Funding and running a surefire (because of superior funding) campaign through one of Boeing’s chief outside law firms of which Boeing is a major if not the major financial supporter? Some other inducement, perhaps? What did she and the Senior Manager of Corporate Investigations for Boeing that proudly describes his company (and therefore, its management) as the most arrogant on the face of the planet do to ensure the wrong outcome desired? What lies did they tell during that and/or other meetings with the prosecutor’s office? Did they assure the prosecutor verbally that my well documented report of systemic Boeing fraud in quality assurance which was partially (albeit unwillingly, on the corrupt FAA’s part) proven by serious and systemic FAA findings as a result of it was a figment of my imagination? If so, why would the Deputy Prosecutor and/or Satterberg take such representatives of a corporation with multiple other publicly well known legal and ethical flaws in its highest management circles at their word on such a serious matter, that should have been a perfect situation for the Fraud Department of the Prosecutor’s office to investigate and prosecute themselves?

Of course, such corruption of the prosecutor’s office may not exist. They may have been simply duped by Boeing and Boeing’s “fixer” into filing the charges purely in response to Boeing’s request to do so, dazzled by being asked to do so by such highly placed management at Boeing, as the law itself obviously doesn’t support such charges.

This is highly suspicious indeed. I believe the noted “Boeing fixer” “attorney” is also going to testify in court against me as well. It will be her chance to prevaricate in public just as I believe she did in that private meeting at which the decision to arrest me was made. It should be an interesting chance to ask her—the Boeing attorney most intimately involved with ensuring that the fraud in Boeing Quality Assurance management as detailed on my website could continue rather than end—some interesting and very relevant questions as to the true genesis of the charges against me. I guess I’ll have to jot down some relevant questions for her for use by my attorney.

This is truly a major revelation as to the true nature of the motive behind the charges against me, which are on their face more wholly manufactured than Boeing aircraft themselves, as I can attest.

Look for more blogs from me this week on other subjects I haven't covered as I should have that have ocurred of late.

Gerald Eastman

The Last Inspector

The public is now learning what I and numerous other people have known for untold years--there are few statements as oxymoronic as "Boeing Credibility".

During the announcement of the third delay of the 787 today, one of Boeing's executives stated that they knew Boeing's credibility was being tested. This executive's statement brings up the same question that comes to mind when you think about the still far from complete first 787 flight test airplane being tested--how do you test something that doesn't seem to exist? Yes the 787 first flight test airplane does exist in some stage of assembly Boeing won't credibly discuss, it would seem. However, as far as a flight test ready 787 aircraft goes, no such animal exists, just as Boeing's "credibility" doesn't seem to exist at this point to most.

Sure, Boeing does release true information from time to time. But the press is finding it more and more difficult it seems to tell the true bits of information from the Boeing "spin" that makes one take everything Boeing puts out these days with a bag full of salt.

Three times now Boeing has proven itself not credible, and that is just on the subject of the 787 program status. Take other Boeing statements made, such as the statement that nothing could slip through Boeing's multiple layered quality system (paraphrasing, of course), and you begin to see Boeing for what it is--as one Boeing Corporate Manager stated to me it was--the most arrogant company on the face of the planet.

Do arrogant companies have to tell the truth and/or even have to care whether or not they tell the truth to the public and their investors?--Of course not. Least of all the most arrogant company on the planet.

It's amazing that the press is now stating the truth about one aspect of the 787 program delays--that unprecedented outsourcing of historically Boeing performed work has backfired and been a cause of the delays of the program.

It's Boeing IAM and SPEEA union workers that are now working hard trying to save the company's bacon from this huge error on Boeing management's part driven by greed and a related one sided war on its part against its own union workforce.

Unions are only formed when a company's management won't treat its workers with the respect and fairness they deserve. Unfortunately. Boeing has not buried the hatchet when it comes to its own workforce, and many people at Boeing do nothing all day but try to decrease Boeing's "worker bee" population ala Scrooge's pre-epiphany cold hearted view of what should happen to those below his station in life.

As for the 787 program delays, who is to blame? Boeing says the suppliers are responsible because they aren't completing their work on time. This shows a naivet'e that you would think would be absent at such a huge corporation. However, even at mega-corporations like Boeing, the temptation to blame the other guy is too easy and convenient and hard to resist.

Of course, Boeing solely is to blame for every one of the three delays. They picked the suppliers. They monitored (or, it looks like at this point, didn't monitor) their supplier's performance. They had the responsibility to have backup plans in place to meet quality and schedule targets if any supplier failed to do so.

But Boeing blamed the other guy when the corporation Boeing stared at in the mirror was really to blame--yet another strike against its self-purported "credibility."

Boeing's credibility (to the extent it may have existed at one time) has already been tested through these delays and multiple other events, and it has failed those tests--or, perhaps, it was never demonstrated because it was never really there.

Those who know me know that I have credibility. Strange, isn't it, that the corporation accusing me has demonstrated numerous times now its lack of credibility, whereas mine remains intact. I think people will easily be able to judge the truthfulness and motives of Boeing for what they are if and when the time comes for them to do so.

It's been a long time. I wish all of you not involved in the fraud I witnessed at Boeing and the FAA a happy New Year. Lots more to write, but the rigors of daily life interrupt for now.

Gerry

AKA The Last Inspector.

Reminder: Please write to Henry Waxman's House Government Oversight and Reform Committee and your representatives in Congress today! Please see www.thelastinspector.com or my last post to this blog for details!


I wanted to start out by saying a heartfelt "thank you" to those of you who contributed to my Legal Defense Fund at BECU. Your benevolence will go a long way in covering costs for my representation in court. Even though I have a public defender I do have to pay for part of it. If any person who has contributed would wish to have more personal note from me you can email me when you contribute. I don't have any visibility who contributed. Thanks again for your generosity.


My blog today has alot to do with part of my July 29th, 2007 blog, "What is Wrong With the Legal System?," which can be found at the following link:


http://eastmans.web.aplus.net/pblog/ind ... 729-222028


It has to do with the portion of the blog dealing with lawyers I had had to deal with over the course of my quest to end the Boeing fraud documented on my web site, specifically (with the important points bolded):


"You would hope somewhere in this system there was somebody that followed the rules and did their jobs...A prosecutor's office. A company's legal department. A private legal firm. An attorney.


It seems finding people of integrity in the legal system is as slapdash as it was to find such people in my department when I was an inspector at Boeing. I was almost alone in being the one with enough integrity to do my job while being pressured not to do it by people without integrity.


Take the Boeing Legal department, for instance, which I tried to report fraud to on two occasions and who are assisting in my persecution now. They have many attorneys in house who presumably had to pass the bar and have to stay members of the bar to continue their profession.


Why weren't any of them kicked out of the bar association when they advised Boeing that the State Department had no authority to keep them from exporting militarily sensitive devices on aircraft to proscribed countries without an export license? It would seem like an open and shut case. The State Department prevailed over the Boeing legal department's wrong legal opinion that may have placed our country in danger. Boeing had to pay a $15 million dollar fine. But why weren't the attorneys who made that obviously incorrect decision fired or disbarred to keep them from making such huge "errors" in the future? Your guess may be as good as mine. There seems to be a lack of accountability in the profession. Or did Boeing's attorneys give the errant legal opinion and let the militarily sensitive technology on the airplanes deliver just because Boeing needed to deliver the airplanes to meet revenue and profit targets? That might explain both the highly questionable opinion by Boeing's attorneys and why Boeing deferred complying with State Department requests for Boeing to apply for export licenses before delivering such airplanes on multiple occasions. It also explains why such attorneys were not fired or debarred for incompetence. They were just doing their jobs. But that would have made them even better candidates for disbarrment, you would think.


But since when did attorneys stop advising comnpanies how to avoid legal problems by ensuring they complied with laws, and stop advising companies how to minimize the damage from any accidental breaking of the law, and start advising their companies how to break the law with impunity?


I saw that in the same Boeing legal department. They refused to end the fraud in quality assurance I reported to their chief counsel on two occasions, and instead seemed to pull out all the stops in ensuring that fraud was not ended, as a naive person like me (at the time) might have expected. Hell, the Chief Counsel of Boeing showed up at the doorstep of my work not to help end the fraud, but instead to decide how to dispose of me, who they viewed as the real problem. You would think any attorney involved in this covering up of this fraud and the resulting retaliation against me would be a prime candidate for disbarrment. But I have no knowledge of any of them being disbarred. To this day they labor to cover up the same fraud I reported to them over five years ago...Indeed, my prosecution is just one part of their plan to cover up the noted fraud.


But if private legal departments operate thusly, what about our prosecutors? Wouldn't those attorneys who work on our dime spot such fraud and the related efforts to cover it up by placing false reports to the police to get people trying to end it arrested and the information they were gathering for the relevant authorities confiscated? Nope. They apparently do what the Boeing legal department wants them to do, not what is in the interests of the public or public safety. They decide to participate in the cover up by attacking the messenger of the fraud. Of course, maybe it is not incomptence or corruption that caused our public attorneys to act against their professional ethics. Maybe Boeing's chief outside law firm contributing to the campaign of the prosecutor who faces his first election for King County Prosecutor in a few months played a part. I don't know if Boeing is helping his election directly yet, but they have certainly proven themselves arrogant enough to do so. Shouldn't these types of activities cause these prosecutors to get disbarred as well? It would seem so. I don't see the bar association condoning this type of behavior.


...I am just one insignificant "victim" of unethical public and private attorneys working together that should probably be disbarred for incomptence and/or corruption. There will be others, unless someone, like I did in my job as an inspector at Boeing, stands up and actually does their job with the required ethics."


End of blog excerpt.


What I wanted to relay today was some insight I have gotten into the answer for this conundrum: Attorneys protecting illegalities rather than representing their clients in order to prevent illegalities from occurring or to defend their clients after they have (wittingly or not) engaged in illegal activity. While researching this subject, I have found a startling answer by consulting definitive sources of legal information on the subject:


As it turns out, the behavior of attorneys I mentioned in the above examples that help their clients continue to engage in fraud in any way (covering it up, etc.) are not just doing their jobs as attorneys. Such attorneys are in fact considered accomplices in the fraud or crime they help ensure continues, rather than ensure it ends. Those among you who are legally savvy are probably saying "duh" right now, but this was news to me.


What does this mean? (Yeah, get ready for another "duh" moment.) Of course, it means that attorneys cannot legally act in the way I have witnessed them act. There is nothing that lets them do their jobs in that way. Such attorneys that cover up ongoing fraud or enable its continuance don't just need to be disbarred--they are as complicit themselves with those that commit the fraud they are protecting. They are criminals, not attorneys. Due to the lowly state of public opinion of attorneys you may not sense the significance of this. Some people think all lawyers are bad and even criminally so because they have been so demonized as a group. However, what I found out shows (in this one area of law) who the real attorneys who are criminals are, and why they are criminal accomplices rather than just counsel to criminals.


So, attorneys who protect such fraud should be disbarred and tried with those whose fraud they were protecting. The fact that this kind of behavior by attorneys seems so common (in the limited circle of public and private attorneys I have had to deal with) is even more disconcerting with the knowledge it is not only ABA rules they are breaking, but that they are breaking the law as well.


It is indeed a sad era in America when both public and private attorneys protect fraud that places so many lives at extra levels of risk of an unknown and random severity.

Reminder: Please write to Henry Waxman's House Government Oversight and Reform Committee and your representatives in Congress today! Please see www.thelastinspector.com or my last post to this blog for details!


Today is another post by other members of forums I have visited. You probably won't be able to read it directly from this blog,but if you click on it, it will open in a readable (uncompressed) form:




<cr>

They have also seen what I have seen at Boeing. I am not alone by far, I know. That is why I am being made an example of what happens to those who tell on Boeing.